It is shameful to think that they have support from any sector of the population let alone any experts. This crime is unforgivable! Their ban should only be lifted many years after a complete confession.

I play a similar system and can totally understand the reason for rebidding 1♠ with the given hand when playing it 4+, forcing and possibly a canape. 2m is limited and denies a 4+M ...His hand was almost too strong for a NF 2m bid but not strong ...

Kit; (and Steve) When there is a possible defense that succeeds but that defense becomes impossible with the information given then I would allow the defense to prevail 100% of the time. What do I mean by possible? If you would never consider the winning D then I would call ...

I think David may be right... The laws should be changed to treat situations like this differently. When the information given makes the winning defense impossible, but a successful defense is possible with the accurate information (so at least 1 of the polled players found the winning defense given the ...

It seems strange that you might give misleading information and when caught the worst that happens is that equity is restored. That is like freerolling the system for a weighted score or no adjustment at all and should not be possible.

they were given a weighted score change. I would allow the defenders to get the maximum score that they might have achieved with complete information. ( i wasn't trying to say that I would award them 24 imps or something like that, just that they should be allowed to defend ...

I think the question "did 1♠ promise 5?" need only be answered with "yes" or "no". That is a bad way to ask a question. "Explain the bidding" or simply "how many ♠ are promised with a 1♠ bid?" would be more useful. Having said that, when the ...